I can't speak for the 620, but will just say that I have and like the 220. It certainly does everything I'd ever want or need a running watch to do.

There was just a thread on the 620 yesterday where some guy tested it against others and showed the GPS data to be the least reliable. I didn't read the whole thing, but looked like he did a thorough analysis.

I bought my wife a 220 last week and she had issues with the GPS data being off, so I am taking it out in about a half hour for a run and calibrating it against my 910 on a route I know the distances exactly. I'll let you know what I find from that front.

As for a comparison - check out dcrainmaker.com for his reviews of both. He loves the 620, but we went with the 220 because my wife didn't feel she needed all the extras.

If you look closely at what the literature says about what garmin describes as the run dynamic metrics, you'd realize it's counterintuitive to try to "improve" these metrics.

In terms of accuracy and consistency, the 220 is as accurate as my old 210 (what I consider the gold standard in gps watches) and is consistent with itself.

I just got my fiancé the 220 as well. No issues with GPS accuracy after 3 runs. The 620 is nice but has some features that she would never use. I think it all comes down to what you want in the watch and if those extra features are worth the $$.

I wouldn't buy a 620 over a 220. I DID just buy the Fenix2 instead of the 220. The only downside I see is the larger size - but this was replacing a 310xt and the size doesn't really bother me.

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

Just to update this. I just got back from what I know to be exactly 5 miles as a recovery run (20 miles on Tuesday...ugh). I wore both on my left arm just to be as close as possible.

910xt: 5.00 Miles (37:20)
220: 4.99 Miles (37:23 - delay in finding the stop button - not used to it being up top)

So now I have to break the news to my wife that her issues were either user error or not running far/fast enough.

To the OP - I love my 910 because I use it as my bike computer and what not, but if primarily for a run watch, I'd pick up the 220 in a heartbeat. Sorry, no experience with the 620 but it does look really nice.

My 220 seems to be pretty reliable and consistent. I used to use a 305 and have run a route from my house at least a hundred times and I know exactly where I will hit the 1, 2, 3 and 4 KM marks. Both the 305 and the 220 have always been within about 5-10 feet of those marks day in and day out.

I tried to decide between the 220 and the 620 as well and the only feature of the 620 that interested me was the wifi and that certainly wasn't worth the extra $$ to me.

not to hijack the thread but how do you like the 220 vs the 210? Battery life, etc?

Cant compare to the 210, but the battery life on the 220 is solid.

My 910 in "Other/Watch" mode and no GPS lasts about a day to day and a half. It also takes about 3 minutes to pick up the satellites when i go outside and turn GPS on.

The 220 goes into power save/watch only mode automatically and my wife's was off the charger for 3 days and when I picked it up today it was still at 73%. It also picked up the satellites in about 10 seconds when i went outside today.

I have the 620 and love it. Been using it for about 5 months indoor and outdoor. I don't think the 220 has an indoor function but you can still use a footpod I think. The other reason I wanted the 620 because the amount of data fields that it has available compare to the 220. So check to see if what you want is available in the 220.
As far as GPS accuracy, I think it is as accurate or more accurate than any other GPS watch I had. No problem there for me.

Plus, who on ST doesn't want to know their vertical oscillation measured.

---

---

SmartBikeTrainers.com || YouTube || My Twitter

I've got a 220. I had a 310XT.

The 220 is within the same normal variation (a hundredth of mile or 2) over my normal trail run loop when compared to the 301XT.

My 310XT was consistently 4.38 to 4.40 and the 220 is the same. I run this loop 2-3 times a week and the route has several turns, switchbacks and elevation changes, but with clear line of sight to satellites so I would consider it a good test loop.

Based upon those observations I would also say there no difference between the two.

---

Suffer Well.

I have had the 620 since December. It was a Christmas gift & I will say that I love it (for reference, I was using a FR410). I am a huge data nerd, so having more stats on the 620 is great for me. Also, the 620 can display more fields on the face than the 220...again, data nerd. If I had to do it over again, or if I didn't get the watch as a gift, I would probably be just as happy with the 220, but I wanted a watch that I would not want to replace for a few years, so I went big.

As for the data accuracy, I posted this in other thread (http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=5046163#5046163). The short version is that there are some real flaws with Fellrnr's testing. The biggest one is that he uses Garmin's smart recording instead of 1-second recording. That's a fail right out of the gate. I have found that my 620 is just as accurate as any other watch I have compared it to.

The 220 is a souped up version of the 210. Lighter, customizable screens, vibrations alerts, better battery life, and faster signal acquisition.

My only 2 complaints about the 220 are the screen tends to get grease smudges easily and that its casing seems less durable than the 210 (soft rubber vs hard plastic). I've had my 210 for 3 years, and even after dropping the damn thing multiple times, it looks ridiculously flawless. I suspect they switched the casing material to improve the signal as well as reduce weight.